Madras High Court
A.Nagaraj vs The Secretary on 8 October, 2025
Bench: C.V.Karthikeyan, R.Vijayakumar
REV.APLC(MD). No.93 of 2015
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated : 08/10/2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
REV.APLC(MD). No.93 of 2015
and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2015
A.Nagaraj ... Petitioner
Vs
1. The Secretary,
Government of Tamilnadu,,
Department of Municipal and Local Administration,
St. George Fort,
Secretariat, Chennai – 9.
2. The Superintendent of Police,
O/o. The Superintendent of Police,
Ramanathapuram District.
3. The Rameswaram Municipality,
Rep.By its the Municipal Commissioner,
Rameswaram,
Ramanathapuram District. ... Respondents
Prayer: Application filed under Order47 Rule 1 of CPC to review the
order passed in W.A.(MD)No.209 of 2015, dated 26.03.2015 in W.P.
(MD)No.1869 of 2015, dated 13.02.2015.
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/10/2025 01:38:39 pm )
REV.APLC(MD). No.93 of 2015
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Mahaboob Fazil
For Respondents : Mr.S.R.A.Ramachandran,
Addl. Govt. Pleader for R1
Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar,
Addl. Public Prosecutor for R2
No Appearance for R3
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.) The review application has been filed seeking reconsideration and review of the judgment in W.A.(MD) No.209 of 2015 dated 26.03.2015. The said Writ Appeal had been filed questioning the order in WP(MD)No.1869/2015 dated 13.02.2015, whereby the learned Single Judge had dismissed the writ petition.
2. The writ petition had been filed in the nature of Certiorarified Mandamus seeking records relating to an order dated 07.10.2014 on the file of the second respondent, Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram and to quash the same and to direct the 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/10/2025 01:38:39 pm ) REV.APLC(MD). No.93 of 2015 respondents to reopen the closed streets and resume vehicular traffic in the streets around Ramanathaswamy Temple at Rameswaram.
3. A perusal of the judgment of the Division Bench reveals that it had been very categorically recorded that the Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram District had convened a meeting with various persons including the advocates, owners of lodges, Hotels apart from the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram and also the concerned inspector of Police and it had been recorded that for the convenience of the pilgrims, mini buses, battery cars and 108 ambulance would be parked on the four sides of Rathaveethi car street at Rameswaram. It had been very specifically stated that this step had been taken considering the safety and security of the temple and also the welfare of the pilgrims who are using the said streets. nearby the temple.
4. The learned counsel for the review applicant stated that there has been no reference to Section 163 of the Municipality Act, 1961. But however, all possible safety measures as required to be taken under extraordinary circumstances, particularly taking into consideration the sensitivity of the place, where the temple is situated had been taken. 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/10/2025 01:38:39 pm ) REV.APLC(MD). No.93 of 2015
5. In fact, in the order of the learned Single Judge in the writ petition, the proceedings had been extracted in vernacular and a reading of the same also reflects that there are threat of terrorist attack in the temple and therefore, immediate and emergent measures had to be taken for the safety and security of the temple and also of the general public and also of the pilgrims, who visit the temple. As a matter of fact, these steps taken would also be to the benefit of the petitioner, who is running a hotel business in the particular area. His property would also be protected from being subjected to any damage or violence.
6. We find no reason to interfere with the judgment of the Division Bench dated 26.03.2015. There is no error apparent on the face of the records. It is also to be pointed out that the review application cannot be converted as an appeal procedure and we cannot sit in appeal over the judgment of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court and even if any alternate view is possible, a review application would not lie. 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/10/2025 01:38:39 pm ) REV.APLC(MD). No.93 of 2015
7. Accordingly, this Review Application stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.
(C.V.K., J.) (R.V., J.)
08.10.2025
Index : Yes / No
NCC : Yes / No
Internet : Yes
VSM
TO
1. The Secretary,
Government of Tamilnadu,,
Department of Municipal and Local Administration, St. George Fort, Secretariat, Chennai – 9.
2. The Superintendent of Police, O/o. The Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram District.
3. The Municipal Commissioner, Rameswaram Municipality, Rameswaram, Ramanathapuram District.
5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/10/2025 01:38:39 pm ) REV.APLC(MD). No.93 of 2015 C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
and R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
REV.APLC(MD) No.93 of 2015
Date : 08/10/2025 6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/10/2025 01:38:39 pm )